Open Stack

On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 8:57 AM Ghanshyam Mann <gmann at ghanshyammann.com>
wrote:

>  ---- On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:41:00 -0600 Mark Goddard <mark at stackhpc.com>
> wrote ----
>  > On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 19:55, Ghanshyam Mann <gmann at ghanshyammann.com>
> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >  ---- On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 13:36:53 -0600 Mark Goddard <
> mark at stackhpc.com> wrote ----
>  > >  > On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 18:40, Ghanshyam Mann <
> gmann at ghanshyammann.com> wrote:
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  ---- On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 03:35:33 -0600 Mark Goddard <
> mark at stackhpc.com> wrote ----
>  > >  > >  > On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 16:12, Ghanshyam Mann <
> gmann at ghanshyammann.com> wrote:
>  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  ---- On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 04:35:53 -0600 Mark Goddard <
> mark at stackhpc.com> wrote ----
>  > >  > >  > >  > Hi,
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >  > If you haven't been paying close attention, it would be
> easy to miss
>  > >  > >  > >  > some of the upcoming RBAC changes which will have an
> impact on
>  > >  > >  > >  > deployment projects. I thought I'd start a thread so
> that we can share
>  > >  > >  > >  > how we are approaching this, get answers to open
> questions, and
>  > >  > >  > >  > ideally all end up with a fairly consistent approach.
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >  > The secure RBAC work has a long history, and continues
> to evolve.
>  > >  > >  > >  > According to [1], we should start to see some fairly
> substantial
>  > >  > >  > >  > changes over the next few releases. That spec is fairly
> long, but
>  > >  > >  > >  > worth a read.
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >  > In the yoga timeline [2], there is one change in
> particular that has
>  > >  > >  > >  > an impact on deployment projects, "3. Keystone enforces
> scope by
>  > >  > >  > >  > default". After this change, all of the deprecated
> policies that many
>  > >  > >  > >  > still rely on in Keystone will be removed.
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >  > In kolla-ansible, we have an etherpad [5] with some
> notes, questions
>  > >  > >  > >  > and half-baked plans. We made some changes in Xena [3]
> to use system
>  > >  > >  > >  > scope in some places when interacting with system APIs
> in Ansible
>  > >  > >  > >  > tasks.
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >  > The next change we have staged is to add the service
> role to all
>  > >  > >  > >  > service users [4], in preparation for [2].
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >  > Question: should the role be added with system scope or
> in the
>  > >  > >  > >  > existing service project? The obvious main use for this
> is token
>  > >  > >  > >  > validation, which seems to allow system or project scope.
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >  > We anticipate that some service users may still require
> some
>  > >  > >  > >  > project-scoped roles, e.g. when creating resources for
> octavia. We'll
>  > >  > >  > >  > deal with those on a case by case basis.
>  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > > Service roles are planned for phase2 which is Z release[1].
> The Idea here is
>  > >  > >  > > service to service communication will happen with 'service'
> role (which keystone
>  > >  > >  > > need to implement yet) and end users will keep using the
> what ever role
>  > >  > >  > > is default (or overridden in policy file) which can be
> project or system scoped
>  > >  > >  > > depends on the APIs.
>  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > > So at the end service-service APIs policy default will
> looks like
>  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  '(role:admin and system:network and
> project_id:%(project_id)s) or (role:service and project_name:service)'
>  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > > Say nova will use that service role to communicate to
> cinder and cinder policy will pass
>  > >  > >  > > as service role is in OR in default policy.
>  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > > But let's see how they are going to be and if any
> challenges when we will implement
>  > >  > >  > > it in Z cycle.
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > I'm not 100% on our reasoning for using the service role in
> yoga (I
>  > >  > >  > wasn't in the discussion when we made the switch, although
> John
>  > >  > >  > Garbutt was), although I can provide at least one reason.
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > Currently, we have a bunch of service users doing things like
> keystone
>  > >  > >  > token validation using the admin role in the service project.
> If we
>  > >  > >  > enforce scopes & new defaults in keystone, this will no
> longer work,
>  > >  > >  > due to the default policy:
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > identity:validate_token: (role:reader and system_scope:all) or
>  > >  > >  > rule:service_role or rule:token_subject
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > Now we could go and assign system-reader to all these users,
> but if
>  > >  > >  > the end goal is to give them all the service role, and that
> allows
>  > >  > >  > token validation, then to me that seems like a better path.
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > Currently, we're creating the service role during deploy &
> upgrade,
>  > >  > >  > then assigning it to users. Keystone is supposed to create
> the service
>  > >  > >  > role in yoga, so we can eventually drop that part.
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > Does this seem reasonable? Is keystone still on track to
> create the
>  > >  > >  > service role in yoga?
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > I think this is a reasonable plan and once we have service roles
> implemented
>  > >  > > in keystone as well as in all the services to request other
> service APIs then
>  > >  > > deployment project (Kolla here) can update them from
> system_reader to
>  > >  > > actual service role.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > To be clear, I am proposing to skip system-reader, and go straight
> to
>  > >  > the service role in yoga.
>  > >
>  > > But that would not be doable until services implement service roles
> which is
>  > > Yoga cycle target for keystone and Z cyle target for other projects.
> Or you mean
>  > > to re-consider to target the service role for all projects also in
> Yoga so that
>  > > deployment projects can go with service role directly?
>  >
>  > Our current plan is to add the service role to all service users in
>  > yoga. This will allow keystone token validation to work when keystone
>  > drops the deprecated policies.
>  >
>  > We will not remove the admin role from service users in the service
>  > project during yoga. This will allow projects other than keystone to
>  > continue to work as before.
>  >
>  > At some later point, we will remove the admin role from service users
>  > in the service project, hopefully relying on the service role for most
>  > service-service communication. There may be other roles we need to
>  > assign in order to drop admin, but we'll assess that as we go.
>  >
>  > Hopefully that's a bit more of a clear picture, and it seems sensible?
>
> +1, sounds good to me. Hopefully we will get in better shape by Z release
> when all (or maximum) services will be migrated to new RBAC. Till than
> your plan sounds reasonable.
>
> -gmann
>

I'll follow the same approach in Puppet OpenStack and will add the
project-scoped 'service' role
to each service user by default. IIUC This is consistent with the current
devstack which assigns
the project-scoped service role to each service user, so I expect this
approach will be tested
in dsvm jobs [1].
 [1]
https://github.com/openstack/devstack/blob/d5d0bed479497560489983ae1fc80444b44fe029/lib/keystone#L421

The same was already implemented in TripleO by [2]
 [2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/+/819250


>
>  >
>  > >
>  > > -gmann
>  > >
>  > >  >
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > And yes that can be done for token validation as well as
>  > >  > > the service-to-service API calls for example nova to cinder or
> neutron to nova
>  > >  > > APIs call. I do not think we can migrate everything (service
> tokens) together for all
>  > >  > > the services in deployment projects until all these services are
> ready with the 'service'
>  > >  > > role implementation (implementation means changing their default
> roles
>  > >  > > to add 'service' role for service-to-service APIs).
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > Regarding the keystone track on service role work in Yoga or
> not, I do not
>  > >  > > have clear answer may be Lance or keystone team can answer it.
> But Lance
>  > >  > > has spec up[1] but not yet merged.
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > [1]
> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/keystone-specs/+/818616
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > -gmann
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >  > In anticipation of keystone setting enforce_scope=True
> and removing
>  > >  > >  > >  > old default policies (which I assume effectively removes
>  > >  > >  > >  > enforce_new_defaults?), we will set this in
> kolla-ansible, and try to
>  > >  > >  > >  > deal with any fallout. Hopefully the previous work will
> make this
>  > >  > >  > >  > minimal.
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >  > How does that line up with other projects' approaches?
> What have we missed?
>  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > > Yeah, we want users/deployment projects/horizon etc to use
> the new policy from
>  > >  > >  > > keystone as first and we will see feedback how they are
> (good, bad, really bad) from
>  > >  > >  > > usage perspective. Why we choose keystone is, because new
> policy are there since
>  > >  > >  > > many cycle and ready to use. Other projects needs to work
> their policy as per new
>  > >  > >  > > SRBAC design/direction (for example nova needs to modify
> their policy before we ask
>  > >  > >  > > users to use new policy and work is under progress[2]).
>  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > > I think trying in kolla will be good way to know if we can
> move to keystone's new policy
>  > >  > >  > > completely in yoga.
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > We have a scope-enforcing preview patch [1], and it's passing
> our base
>  > >  > >  > set of tests. I have another that triggers all of the jobs.
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > [1]
> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/825406
>  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > > [1]
> https://opendev.org/openstack/governance/src/branch/master/goals/selected/consistent-and-secure-rbac.rst#z-release-timeline
>  > >  > >  > > [2]
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/policy-defaults-refresh-2
>  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > > -gmann
>  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >  > Mark
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >  > [1]
> https://opendev.org/openstack/governance/src/branch/master/goals/selected/consistent-and-secure-rbac.rst
>  > >  > >  > >  > [2]
> https://opendev.org/openstack/governance/src/branch/master/goals/selected/consistent-and-secure-rbac.rst#yoga-timeline-7th-mar-2022
>  > >  > >  > >  > [3]
> https://opendev.org/openstack/kolla-ansible/commit/2e933dceb591c3505f35c2c1de924f3978fb81a7
>  > >  > >  > >  > [4]
> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/815577
>  > >  > >  > >  > [5]
> https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/enabling-system-scope-in-kolla-ansible
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  >
>  > >  >
>  >
>  >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20220124/542a88e8/attachment-0001.htm>